House debates state subsidies portion of budget bill

Mar. 28, 2013

Written by

Free Press Staff Writer

MONTPELIER — The $5.24 billion budget before the House this week juggles the funding of necessary government services with investing in a few initiatives to brighten the state’s future, Appropriations Chairwoman Martha Heath asserted Thursday.

For the seventh year, the House Appropriations Committee began the budget-writing process knowing that projected revenues were expected to fall short of estimated spending, Heath, a Westford Democrat, said. A tax bill approved earlier in the day filled some of the gap.

“The budget before you today spends less that what was proposed by the administration and leaves $9 million in reserves. This is a responsible course of action,” Heath said.

She noted some of what the budget achieved, despite financial constraints. It would ease the current shift of costs for subsidized health insurance to providers and private insurance by increasing the state’s reimbursement rate.

It adds money for college scholarships, clean energy, working lands and child care — although Heath noted that the child care investment wasn’t as large as Gov. Peter Shumlin wanted.

“Although there are a lot of good features,” House Republican Leader Don Turner said of the budget bill. “We think it still doesn’t meet the standards we set.”

House Republicans had set five benchmarks by which they would measure the budget:

• Spending shouldn’t exceed 3 percent.

• New positions should be limited to those needed at state hospital, a maximum of 30.

• $20 million should be set aside to cope with potential federal funding cuts.

• Pensions should be funded and a plan set up to address how to pay for retired teacher health care.

• No new or expanded programs should be initiated.

“We have to get our fiscal house in order,” Turner said. The caucus planned to offer an amendment Friday to make headway on that goal.

Rep. Ron Hubert, R-Milton, unveiled the amendment late Thursday. It proposes alternative ways to use some of the $27 million in new revenues the tax bill would authorize. Hubert’s plan would direct $9.9 million more to reserve accounts and adds $6 million to the teacher retirement fund for health care.

(Page 2 of 2)

Hubert’s amendment includes a list of cuts that free up money for his preferred purposes. For example, the amendment would stretch out the increase in health are reimbursement over three years saving $10 million. It would eliminate $2 million for a clean energy development fund and eliminate four positions in the Agency of Natural Resources.

Reach up debate

The House wrestled Thursday with one of the most controversial proposals the governor had put forward in his budget — to cap how long Vermont families could rely on a state subsidy to help them cover living expenses. It would save $6 million in the first year.

In his January budget address, Shumlin said, “It might surprise most Vermonters to learn that Vermont is the only state in the country that extends Reach Up benefits without interruption to the entire household for a lifetime. In contrast to Vermont, 46 states limit assistance to five years or fewer.”

He added, “Extending welfare to work benefits without interruption for a lifetime does nothing to actually encourage people to get a job.”

The House Appropriations Committee included a gentler cap than the administration proposed, giving cooperating families facing the cap this year six extra months after the 60-month cutoff the governor wanted and would receive some additional support to help them become self-sufficient. The committee also said financial aid could continue for children in families who hit the five-year limit.

The House provision wouldn’t create any budget savings.

Rep. Anne Donahue, R-Northfield, offered an amendment that would create a tougher cap than the committee recommended, but not as harsh as the administration. It was the proposal that the House Human Services Committee voted 6-5 to recommend. Like the House proposal, Donahue said she didn’t expect savings in the first year.

Donahue stressed in her floor speech that “the language in the House Appropriations bill is not a cap.” She said her amendment wouldn’t allow families to continue to collect child-only grants after reaching 60 months. For a parent/child family, the loss of an adult subsidy would amount to about $100 from a total monthly grant of $536-$560.

Donahue’s cap failed by a vote of 88-51.

Rep. John Moran, D-Wardsboro, offered yet another option, to eliminate a time limit for families complying with the requirements of the Reach-Up program. There are people who have multiple challenges to finding jobs that can’t support their families, he said.

“The heart of the amendment is fairness,” Moran said.

The House Appropriations Committee unanimously urged rejection of the proposal because it moved away from any kind of time limit, but several Democrats and a Progressive pressed for its approval.

“What is in this bill is the wrong thing to do,” Rep. George Till, D-Jericho, argued, raising the possibility that the cap could result in some families becoming homeless.

“This amendment doesn’t eliminate the cap, but it does soften the blow for families following the rules,” argued Rep. Christopher Pearson, P- Burlington.

The question divided Democrats, but most teamed up with Republicans to defeat the amendment by a vote of 36 to 98.